(via 5000 Years of Gems and Jewelry) Frances Rogers and Alice Beard writes:
This work was accomplished in less than three weeks’ time, for, says a State record, 1623, ‘Mr Heriot sat up day and night to get them completed.’
In a letter to the Prince of Wales, who was then traveling in Spain, James wrote that he was sending for his ‘Babie’s owin wearing.....the Three Brethren, that you knowe full well, but newlie sette.’
Aside from the famous pendant, orders were issued concerning the selection of ‘five or six faire jewels to be worn in men’s hats, same to be of £6000 or £7000 value, and none under.’ And to these sumptuous hat ornaments for the Prince, James added ‘the Mirroure of Frawnce, the fellowe of the Portugall Dyamont, quhiche I wolde wishe you to weare alone in your hatte with a little blakke feather.’
The rich jewels of the English crown were before long to face new dangers to their permanent existence. Not long after they came into the hands of Charles I, the ‘Babie’ for whom The Brethren had already suffered resetting, financial affairs were in a bad way. But there were all those jewels which had been collecting for so many years in the royal treasury—and to these Charles turned for a source of ready money, selling and pawning jewels that merely for their historic, if not their intrinsic, value, would each be worth a small fortune today. Many of these he pawned or sold in England, but during the Civil War much valuable jewelry was sent by the King and his sympathizers from England to Amsterdam, where it was broken up, the gold melted, and the gems thrown on the market for whatever they would fetch.
Amsterdam was at that time the gem grading center of Europe. When Portugal had expelled her Jewish gem merchants many of them migrated to Amsterdam, where they opened shops in which jewelry was both sold and taken as security. Above the shop door hung three golden balls as the symbol of the retail jeweler and money lender.
But, all the cash that Amsterdam could supply in exchange for English jewels was insufficient to stem the rush of events that proved fatal, not only to King Charles, but to whatever portion of the royal collection of gems had still remained intact.
Up to this point—the death of Charles—the jewels had at least served the utilitarian purpose of providing the King with money. They had been sacrificed to Mammon but not to Malice. But now the House of Commons, determined to stamp out all things relating to monarchy, proceeded ruthlessly to demolish the emblems of royalty. Deaf to the voices of the few members who tried to halt destruction by pointing out the fact that the crown jewels intact were worth far more than their value if reduced to lumps of gold and unmounted stones, the puritanical members had their way.
Among the treasures was the ancient crown of Alfred the Great, made of gold wire and set with small gems. It was melted down and sold at £3 an ounce. Other royal ornaments, broken up or sold at auction, include scepters; crowns set with diamonds, rubies and sapphires; swords, spurs, and regal plate. The list concludes with the following statement:
The foremention’d crownes, since y inventorie was taken, are accordinge to ord’ of parm totallie broken and defaced.
Eleven years later England again had need of crowns and scepters. According to one old account:
Because through Rapine of the late unhappy times all the Royall Ornaments and Regalia heretofore preserved from age to age in the Treasury of the Church at Westminster, were taken away, sold and destroyed, the Committee mett divers times not only to direct the remaking such Royall Ornaments adn Regalia, but even to sette the form and fashion of each particular.
The new Regalia, made from Charles II, son of the ‘Martyr’, met wtih misfortune when Colonel Blood all but succeeded in making off with it. The State Crown, having been bashed in during this raid, was replaced with an entirely new one for which extra gems had to be purchased, since a number of the original ones were lost in the shuffle.
Jewelers Of The Seventeenth Century (continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment